Return to the Quatre Gats Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Is This Art?
| | |
Posted by Elkka (My Page) on Tue, May 18, 04 at 15:44 Follow-Up Postings:
RE: Is This Art?
| | |
| i'm going to say yes... i didn't read if mr. goldwyn took the photos himself and therefore knows the story behind each of them, or if he created a piece of ficitonal text to go along with found photos. either way, the choices that he's made concerning each photograph and bit of text show that they were artfully made. i am guessing that the reason you're asking this is because the final image has been manipulated on a computer. while cgi and computer-manipulated images haven't traditionally been viewed as high art, mainly because of the use of programmed effects and the innumerable amount of these images that exists (in my opinion anyway), i think that they are art in the same tradition that duchamp's readymades are art. |
RE: Is This Art?
| | |
| But I wonder why he felt the need to go over the photographs with paint. The photographs themselves would be able to make the same statement, right? It seems alot of fuss for barely noticeable augmentation. It's not like the pointillists, where the detailed painting created a unique effect. Alot of the images look just like photgraphs, especially the two chairs. I still think it is art, especially the pairing of word with image--though I personally dislike his style; it seems somewhat grandiose and a bit tourism-book-ish, notably the second gallery. Did enjoy the reference to Mannequin Pis, given my personal background (my mother is Belgian, and I have a vivid memory of that statue, and his less famous sister). |
RE: Is This Art?
| | |
| Im so glad I found this I had a thought earlier about photography/painting and I forgot it but youve just jogged my memory. My thought was-Did quality painting (ie Constable,Rembrandt etc)die when the camera became a well established form of image taking? Admittedly I have no idea when the camera was invented(I think 1880's).Pop art was around in the 1960's.So, because images could be captured on film do you think people had to think up new forms of images/art to take place of painting? I havnt looked at the site closely but I do think that anything is art.It just depends on if its 'good or bad' art. |
RE: Is This Art?
| | |
| Quality painting has not died. What died out was painting as a form of recording. Before the advent of photography, wealthy people used to commission artists to paint their property - horses, houses, wives and children (probably in that priority too). I don't consider that to be great quality. As for the Photopaintings on that link above: of course they're art. If the guy says they're art, they're art. That simple. They're not very good though... (I'm with Clare on that) |
RE: Is This Art?
| | |
| Yeah, they're art, and yeah, they look crappy. This whole "painting on the computer" thing is on alot of minds lately I think. We arty types don't know where to put it. I mean, we're used to accepting all kinds of things as art. The problem with alot of "digital painting" is not that the artworld isn't ready to accept new mediums, but that nothing seems to have come along that seems plausible. Most of it is like airbrush art... you know, fantasy themes, elves with big knockers, etc. We're ready for change, just show us something worth seeing! |
RE: Is This Art?
| | |
| Yes, I think it is an art form, but I believe it has been around quite awhile. Most of the massurreal works I have seen remind me of his work. There are many massurrealists out there, but this artist calls it photopainting. I really cannot tell much difference in it and massurrealism. www.massurrealism.com I like Larry Carlson's work much better. |
Post a Follow-Up
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Quatre Gats Forum
|
|
|